TEXTE
32/2015
Future measures for fuel
savings and GHG
reduction of heavy-duty
vehicles
Summary
TEXTE 32/2015
Environmental Research of the
Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety
Project No. (FKZ) 3711 96 105
Report No. (UBA-FB) 002058
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG
reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
by
Frank Dünnebeil, Carsten Reinhard, Udo Lambrecht
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH, Heidelberg,
Germany
Antonius Kies, Stefan Hausberger, Martin Rexeis
Institut für Verbrennungskraftmaschinen und Thermodynamik,
Technische Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
On behalf of the Federal Environment Agency (Germany)
Imprint
Publisher:
Umweltbundesamt
Wörlitzer Platz 1
06844 Dessau-Roßlau
Tel: +49 340-2103-0
Fax: +49 340-2103-2285
[email protected]
Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt
Study performed by:
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH
Wilckenstr. 3
69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Study completed in:
February 2015
Edited by:
Section I 3.2 X [Name des FGs]
Andrea Fechter
Publication as pdf:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/zukuenftige-massnahmen-zur-kraftstoffeinsparung
ISSN 1862-4804
Dessau-Roßlau, April 2015
The Project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety
under project number FKZ 3711 96 105. The responsibility for the content of this
publication lies with the author(s).
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Kurzbeschreibung
Der Verkehrssektor ist heute für ca. 30 % des Endenergieverbrauchs und 20 % der Treibhausgasemissionen
in Deutschland verantwortlich. Dabei hat der Straßenverkehr den größten Anteil. Schwere Nutzfahrzeuge
sind heute für rund ein Viertel des Energieverbrauchs im Straßenverkehr verantwortlich. Aktuelle Prognosen
erwarten auch für die Zukunft eine weitere deutliche Zunahme des Lkw-Verkehrs. Um die Energieverbrauchs- und Klimaschutzziele zu erreichen sind damit auch bei schweren Nutzfahrzeugen deutliche Minderungen des Kraftstoffverbrauchs notwendig. In der vorliegenden Studie wurden Energieeinspar- und Treibhausgasminderungspotenziale von bisher nicht serienmäßigen technologischen Effizienzmaßnahmen bei
schweren Nutzfahrzeugen abgeschätzt sowie deren Kosteneffizienz zur Treibhausgasminderung untersucht.
Im ersten Arbeitsschwerpunkt wurden Potenziale zur Reduktion von Energieverbrauch und Treibhausgasemissionen ausgewählter Technologien am Antriebstrang, zur Verbesserung von Aerodynamik und Rollwiderstand sowie Optimierungen von Fahrzeuggewicht, Nebenverbrauchern und Fahrzeugregelung systematisch untersucht. Dabei wurde mit dem Simulationstool VECTO das neue Berechnungsverfahren zur CO2Zertifizierung von schweren Nutzfahrzeugen in der Europäischen Union eingesetzt.
Anschließend erfolgte die Analyse von mit dem Einsatz dieser Technologien verbundenen Änderungen der
Fahrzeugkosten, insbesondere zusätzlicher Anschaffungskosten und möglicher Kraftstoffkosteneinsparungen. Einsparpotenziale und Kosten einzelner Technologien sowie von Maßnahmenpaketen wurden in einer
Kosten-Nutzen-Matrix zusammengeführt und Auswertungen zur Potenzialhöhe und Kosteneffizienz zur
Treibhausgasminderung über verschiedene Betrachtungszeiträume durchgeführt.
In einem zusätzlichen Schwerpunkt des Vorhabens wurden mögliche Maßnahmen und politische Strategien
untersucht, welche die Einführung zusätzlicher treibhausgasmindernder Technologien bei schweren Nutzfahrzeugen unterstützen und ihre stärkere Verbreitung in Europa fördern können.
Abstract
The transport sector is currently responsible for approx. 30 % of final energy consumption and 20 % of
greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. In this context, road transport accounts for the largest share. Heavyduty vehicles (HDVs and buses >3.5 t GVW) account for about a quarter of the energy consumption in road
transport at present. Current projections expect substantial increases of HDV transport in the future. Therefore, compliance with climate change mitigation goals and the minimisation of final energy consumption
require a substantial reduction of the fuel consumption associated with heavy-duty vehicles. The objective of
the present study is the estimation of energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction potentials of technological efficiency measures that are not yet established in heavy-duty vehicles in Europe. The reduction potentials and associated costs are both identified and evaluated.
In the first work package, energy-saving and greenhouse gas reduction potentials of selected vehicle technologies in the fields of powertrain, aerodynamics, rolling resistance and optimisation of vehicle weight, engine
auxiliaries and vehicle control systems were analysed. This was using VECTO the designated simulationbased approach for the standardised quantification of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in Europe.
The second work package included the analysis of changes in vehicle costs accompanying the use of these
technologies, including primarily additional investment costs and fuel cost savings. GHG reduction potentials and cost changes of individual technologies as well as measure packages were consolidated in a costbenefit matrix. On this basis, cost efficiency of the measures for GHG mitigation was assessed for different
reference periods.
Many energy-saving and greenhouse gas-reducing technologies for heavy-duty vehicles already available on
the market find limited application and are used by only a fraction of vehicle operators. In consequence, the
scope of the present study included the discussion of political strategies to promote the introduction and establishment of such technologies
5
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
6
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Contents
List of figures ............................................................................................................................ 8
List of tables ............................................................................................................................. 8
1
Background and objective ................................................................................................. 9
2
Energy saving and greenhouse gas reduction potentials ...................................................... 9
3
4
2.1
Vehicle categories under investigation .......................................................................... 9
2.2
Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool (VECTO) ................................................. 10
2.3
Selection of energy-saving and greenhouse gas-reducing technologies ......................... 11
2.4
Energy-saving and greenhouse gas potentials of the technologies ................................ 11
Costs of the investigated efficiency measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases........... 15
3.1
Additional technology-specific costs for vehicle operators ............................................ 15
3.2
Changes to the overall vehicle costs with implementation of the measures .................... 16
3.3
Cost efficiency of the technological measures for GHG reduction ................................... 18
Strategies to promote the introduction and establishment of fuel-saving and GHG
reducing technologies for heavy-duty vehicles .................................................................. 23
4.1
Barriers for establishing fuel-saving and GHG reducing technologies ............................ 23
4.2
Measures to promote technology introduction and establishment in heavy-duty
vehicles .................................................................................................................... 24
7
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
List of figures
Figure 1
Calculation of VECTO to determine the engine operation point and to
interpolate the fuel consumption...................................................................... 10
Figure 2
semi-trailer truck on long haul cycle, single measures ....................................... 11
Figure 3
semi-trailer truck on Long Haul and Regional Delivery Cycle, measure
packages ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4
Delivery truck and city bus, measure packages .................................................. 14
Figure 5
Additional investment costs per vehicle – semi-trailer truck 40 t......................... 16
Figure 6
Change in costs per vehicle in the first 3 years (semi-trailer truck longhaul) .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 7
Specific GHG abatement costs of technological measures for a semi-trailer
truck in long-haul transport depending on the reference period .......................... 19
Figure 8
MAC curves and cumulated GHG abatement costs of measure packages B
for a semi-trailer truck 40 t in long-haul transport .............................................. 20
Figure 9
Roadmap of political measures to promote the establishment of energysaving and GHG reducing technologies in the HDV fleet ..................................... 26
List of tables
Table 1
Average payback periods of hybrid and electric vehicles in different
scenarios........................................................................................................ 18
Table 2
Total GHG mitigation potentials of the measure packages and partial
mitigation potentials of measures in the packages with negative GHG
abatement costs ............................................................................................. 21
8
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
1 Background and objective
The transport sector is currently responsible for approx. 30 % of final energy consumption and 20 % of
greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. In this context, road transport accounts for the largest share. In recent years, road freight transport in particular has steadily increased. Transport services of heavy-duty vehicles rose by 26 % between 2000 and 2010. Heavy- duty vehicles (HDVs and buses >3.5 t GVW) account for
about a quarter of the energy consumption in road transport at present. Current projections expect substantial
increases of HDV transport in the future (2010 to 2030: +30 %) and distinctly slower growth for passenger
cars (+10 %) [BMVI, 2014].
Compliance with climate change mitigation goals and the minimisation of final energy consumption require
a substantial reduction of the fuel consumption associated with heavy-duty vehicles. The European Commission is devising strategies for the reduction of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in collaboration with
its member states and published an initial Key Issues Paper in May 2014 [EC, 2014a]. One vital prerequisite
for vehicle-related strategies is the standardised quantification of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.
The EC is currently developing an appropriate test method. The designated simulation-based approach
(VECTO) should be available for application for certain vehicle categories shortly [JRC, 2014].
The objective of the present study is the estimation of energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction potentials of technological efficiency measures that are not yet established in heavy-duty vehicles in Europe. All
calculations performed seek to comply with the EC test method. The reduction potentials and associated
costs are both identified and evaluated. For this purpose,
▸
▸
▸
▸
Important current or future efficiency technologies relevant for heavy-duty vehicles were selected;
Technology-specific reduction potentials (energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions) of individual
technologies and their combinations were calculated with the CO2 emission simulation tool (VECTO),
the future tool for heavy-duty vehicle certification;
An evaluation of the cost efficiency for vehicle operators as well as an analysis of specific greenhouse
gas abatement costs for the selected technologies was performed;
Existing impediments for the application of available technologies were analysed. Based on these results,
political strategies for the future advance of fuel-efficient and greenhouse gas reducing technologies for
heavy-duty vehicles were devised.
2 Energy saving and greenhouse gas reduction potentials
2.1 Vehicle categories under investigation
Specific reduction potentials (energy consumption and greenhouse gases) of selected technologies for heavyduty vehicles were investigated for the following vehicle classes:
▸
▸
▸
Semi-trailer truck 40 t: This vehicle class is associated with about half of the overall CO2 emissions of
the commercial vehicle fleet in Europe. The simulation was carried out for both the options Long Haul
Cycle and Regional Delivery Cycle.
Delivery truck 12 t: At 2.6 %, the CO2 share of this vehicle class is minor. However, the class may be
seen as representative of the majority of 4x2 and 6x2 solo HDVs (approx. CO2 share 22 %). The analyses were performed with the setting Urban Delivery Cycle.
City bus 18 t (rigid bus, length 12 m): This vehicle class is associated with 4.4 % of CO2 emissions
(including rigid and articulated buses, thus representing a minor proportion of the overall emissions. City
buses are frequently purchased by public institutionsm and thus they are in the public eye, yet may be the
focus of cost-cutting measures. Analyses were carried out with the City bus Urban Cycle.
There was no bias towards any manufacturer in the analyses. All vehicles in the models were based on assumptions for default vehicles equipped generic technology.
9
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
2.2 Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool (VECTO)
Due to the high number of models and variants on the heavy-duty vehicle market, the calculation of final
energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions for each individual model is both too elaborate and too expensive. For instance, there are more than 1000 different options for a 12 t delivery truck within one production
series: engine size, wheel base, cabin size, type of suspension, additional tanks, air conditioning, speed control etc. may all be combined practically at random from a modular system. For these reasons, the European
Commission in collaboration with the OEMs chose an approach that first tested all individual components
separately. The total consumption of the vehicle then follows from the individual component test data. The
simulation programme developed for the impending European CO2 certification of heavy-duty vehicles is
VECTO. Amongst others, the following input data
▸
engine fuel consumption map, gearbox loss map, curb weight, air drag coefficient, rolling resistance
coefficient of the tyres according to EC 1222/2009, power consumption of engine auxiliaries (e.g. fan,
compressor, alternator, steering pump, air conditioning), gear ratios gearbox and axle differential
are quantified with standardised methodology. Thus, energy consumption and direct CO2 emissions of the
respective vehicle model with an average load are simulated assuming standardised target speed cycles. An
overview of the calculations scheme in VECTO may be found in the following figure.
Figure 1
Calculation of VECTO to determine the engine operation point and to interpolate
the fuel consumption
[TU Graz, 2014]
Cd - Air drag coefficient, A - cross sectional area, m - vehicle mass, g - gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s2,α - road gradient angle,
Pe - engine power, Proll - rolling resistance power at wheels, Pair - air drag power at wheels, Pacc - acceleration power at wheels,
Pgrad - wheel power due to grade resistance, Ptrans - power loss in drivetrain due to gearbox friction, Paux - power consumption of auxiliary consumers, Pcons - power consumption at crankshaft of power take off (e. g. hydraulic pumps for waste presses, cranes ..., actual
not depicted), mvehicle - vehicle curb weight, mload - payload, RRC - rolling resistance coefficient of tires, Iwheels - rotational inertia of
wheels, Iengine - rotational inertia of engine, Psupply - useful power output of auxiliaries, e. g. pressurized air, electrical power ...,
n - engine speed, v - vehicle velocity, Iaxle - axle ratio, Igear - gearbox ratio, dtire - dynamic tire diameter, FC - fuel consumption
10
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
2.3 Selection of energy-saving and greenhouse gas-reducing technologies
An elaborate literature search was performed to identify individual technologies that may already be available, or ready for market introduction in the coming years, yet not currently included in the European standard set of technologies applied in the relevant vehicle categories.
Based on the results of the literature survey, a selection of technologies for the different areas of application
(powertrain, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, optimisation of vehicle weight, engine auxiliaries and vehicle
control systems) was chosen for both in-depth potential analyses with VECTO and cost efficiency analyses.
In this context, different technologies were selected for the respective vehicle categories, depending on the
configuration of the reference vehicles and the availability and relevance of the individual technology for the
specified mission profile (e.g. long-haul transport, urban delivery).
2.4 Energy-saving and greenhouse gas potentials of the technologies
The modelling process for the selected technological measures involved the simulation of standardised comparable final energy savings potentials based on current reference vehicle data (state of the art EURO V and
EURO VI). The input data for the simulation of the energy consumption of reference vehicles and the potentials of energy saving measures were derived from own measurement data, industry data, generic standard
data for VECTO from the industry, technical data sheets, product catalogues and expert consultation.
The final energy consumption potentials for most measures were directly simulated with VECTO. The options exhaust heat recovery (Organic Rankine Cycle - ORC), electric hybrid vehicles, battery-electric vehicles and start-stop-automatic were modelled with post-processing as these features were not (yet) available in
the employed version of VECTO. Based on the final energy consumption levels, greenhouse gas reduction
potentials in CO2 equivalents (CO2e) were calculated including the well-to-tank processes of fuel production
and distribution. Well-to-wheel emission factors were applied according to DIN EN 16258 and [JEC, 2014].
The specific fuel-saving measures for the semi-trailer truck and the results of the Long Haul Cycle may be
found in Figure 2.
Figure 2
semi-trailer truck on long haul cycle, single measures
EURO VI: 34,5 L-Diesel/100km
12.39 MJ/km, 1120 g-CO2e/km
EURO V
EURO VI, reference vehicle
1) ICE improved, eta + 0.01
2) Organic Rankine Cycle, exhaust heat
3) Gas engine 350 kW
4) Electrical parallel hybrid
5) Gearbox improved
6) Final drive improved
7) Aero pack 1, trailer, Cd - 16 %
8) Aero pack 2, tractor+trailer, Cd - 23 %
10) Tires actual, B-B-A-A-A
11) Tires future, all axles A
12) Super Single tires future, all A
13) Leight weighting 400 kg
14) 80 km/h
15) Economical auxiliary consumers
Energy consumption TTW and CO2-WTW in %
0
20
40
60
80 100 120
CO2: 99.0
104.9
100.0
97.7
97.0
120,1
96.3
99.5
99.0
96.1
94.2
96.3
94.4
94.1
99.3
96.6
99.0
The bars in the figure show the changed final energy consumption. Differing changes of GHG emissions (CO2e
wtw) for measures with alternative energy carriers instead of diesel are indicated separately.
11
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
The assumptions for the reference truck included tyre fuel-efficiency classes B-C-BBB and an aerodynamically non-optimised trailer. The simulation reveals that the measures available for immediate implementation
▸
▸
▸
7) aero pack trailer (side- and underbody panels with boat tail 0.5 m)
10) best tyres on the market (B-B-AAA)
14) speed limiter of 80 km/h
would allow savings of approx. 10 % in comparison with the reference vehicle EURO VI.
The saving potential of the parallel hybrid is not primarily dependent on the structure of the powertrain (parallel
or serial), but on the maximum generator power of the electrical machine (cf. Chapter 2.4.3.2).
In addition, selected single measures were combined into efficiency packages:
▸
▸
Efficiency Package A: All measures proposed in this package are readily available on the market (state
of the art mid 2014) and could in principle be implemented immediately.
Efficiency Package B: In all likelihood, these measures will be technologically feasible in the foreseeable future. Development of components not yet available on the market is under way and market introduction is expected to be complete at the end of the current decade. In the case of the aero packages 2 for
trucks, a change of EU legislation is necessary to accommodate vehicle length and rear view cameras.
Appropriate efficiency packages were compiled for each of the drive concepts under investigation (diesel,
gas, electric hybrid, battery-electric) in the relevant vehicle classes.
For the semi-trailer truck 40 t, packages for diesel, gas and parallel hybrid vehicles were defined:
▸
▸
Efficiency Package A consists of single measures: 7) aero package 1 trailer, 10) best tyres on the market,
14) speed limiter 80 km/h, 15) efficient engine auxiliaries.
In Efficiency Package B, the additional measures detailed in Figure 2 were included. (ORC could only
be simulated for the diesel engine assuming the Long Haul Cycle).
The reduction potentials of the packages of measures are illustrated in Figure 3. Assuming state of the art
technology (Package A), the semi-trailer truck could potentially achieve savings of up to 16 % of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. With a dedicated diesel powertrain, savings of approx. 11 % on the
Long Haul Cycle are possible. The final energy consumption of the natural gas engine (LNG-tank) with a
similar level of technology is approx. 7 % higher due to the lower energy conversion efficiency of this engine concept. However, the greenhouse gas emissions in this case are reduced by 12 % due to the lower
emission factor of the fuel (75 vs. 90 g CO2e/MJtherm well-to-wheel, see [JEC, 2014]). For the parallel hybrid, the reduction potential with Efficiency Package A amounts to approx. 16 %.
Pack B
Pack A
Figure 3
semi-trailer truck on Long Haul and Regional Delivery Cycle, measure packages
Energy consumption (CO2), values in % versus basis
Tractor-trailer, Long Haul Cycle Tractor-trailer, Regional Delivery Cycle
Basis 34,5 L-Diesel/100km
Basis 40,7 L-Diesel/100km
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
89
Diesel engine
93
107 (88)
Gas engine
110 (91)
84
Electr. parallel hybrid
84
79 (ORC)
87
Diesel engine
98 (81)
Gas engine
103 (85)
76
77
Electr. parallel hybrid
ORC could only be simulated for Diesel engine (pack B)
ORC could not be simulated
The bars in the figure show the changed final energy consumption. Differing changes of GHG emissions (CO2e
wtw) for measures with alternative energy carriers instead of diesel are indicated separately.
12
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
The reduction potentials associated with the future Efficiency Package B are as follows: diesel engine (with
ORC) approx. 21 % energy and greenhouse gas savings, a gas engine (without ORC) ca. 2 % energy and ca.
19 % greenhouse gases, and parallel hybrid (without ORC) approx. 24 %.
The semi-trailer truck model was also simulated on the Regional Delivery Cycle, without ORC, because its
behaviour could not be calculated reliably due to the non-stationary engine operation. All reduction potentials are slightly lower in comparison with the Long Haul Cycle. One reason is the lower average speed of
the Regional Delivery Cycle (58.6 km/h) in comparison with the Long Haul Cycle (73.2 km/h). Thus, the
effect of the aerodynamic add-ons, which are particularly effective at high vehicle speeds, is attenuated.
The potentials of the Efficiency Packages A and B for delivery trucks and city buses are shown in Figure 4.
The investigated vehicle class delivery truck 12 t GVW is representative for rigid trucks from 7.5 t to 18 t.
In addition to the diesel engine, gas engine with CNG tank (68 g CO2e/MJ, see DIN EN 16258) and diesel
engine with electric parallel hybrid, the measure packages were also modelled for a battery-electric vehicle.
▸
▸
Efficiency Package A: aerodynamic improvement by partial fairings and a short boat tail of 0.5 m, current energy efficient tyres (B-D, reference vehicle C-D), start-stop-automatic, speed limiter 80 km/h, efficient auxiliary consumers.
Additional measures of Efficiency Package B: improved engine efficiency, reduced gearbox and axle
losses, rear view cameras, future energy efficient tires (A-A), light weighting 200 kg, LED headlights.
For HDVs with combustion engines, the measures detailed in Package A could achieve savings of 8 % fuel
and greenhouse gases in dedicated diesel engines, whereas the savings of the parallel hybrid amount to 15 %
in comparison with the reference vehicle EURO VI. The use of gas engines increases the energy consumption by 9 %, yet the emissions decrease by approx. 18 %.
Substantially higher reduction potentials are associated with battery-electric engines, i.e. 67 % reduction of
final energy consumption and 56 % greenhouse gas savings. The fundamental advantage of electric engines
over combustion engines is revealed here. The conversion of fuel into kinetic energy in combustion engines
is associated with process-related losses of 50 to 65 %, whereas the energy conversion efficiency of electric
engines frequently exceeds 90 %. Thus, the final energy demand for the same kinetic energy is substantially
lower. However, there are losses during conversion in the power plant depending on the electricity supply
pathway (coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar). The average greenhouse gas emission factor per final energy
of 118 g CO2e/MJel applied here (electricity mix of the EU27 member states according to DIN EN 16258) is
distinctly higher than those of diesel or natural gas. Nonetheless, the approximately doubled conversion efficiency of electric engines in reference to combustion engines, as well as the option of energy recovery (regenerative brakes in vehicles), allows the saving of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases.
Implementation of the future measures of Package B further increases savings potentials. The GHG savings
of thus improved diesel trucks amount to approx.17 %, whereas gas engines could save approx. 27 %. The
electric parallel hybrid concept achieves a reduction of final energy and emissions of approx. 25 %, the savings of the battery-electric HDV amount to approx. 71 % final energy and approx. 62 % greenhouse gases.
For the City bus 18 t (length 12 m), in addition to the HDV powertrains above (gas engine with CNG tank),
the drive concepts electrical serial hybrid and battery-electric vehicle with intermediate charging were included in the analysis. In the case of the battery-electric bus with intermediate charging, the size of the battery was assumed to be substantially smaller than that of a dedicated battery-electric bus (cost and weight
aspects). The charge of the smaller battery is sufficient to complete one run of a bus line (recharge is required at each final stop, i.e. twice per cycle, for approx. 10 minutes).
▸
▸
Efficiency Package A consists of single measures: current energy efficient tyres (C-C, reference vehicle
D-D), start-stop automatic, efficient auxiliary consumers;
Additional measures of Package B: improved engine efficiency, reduced axle losses, future energyefficient tyres (A-A), lightweighting 350 kg, LED headlights, partly insulated passenger compartment.
13
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Pack B
Pack A
Figure 4
Delivery truck and city bus, measure packages
Energy consumption (CO2), values in % versus basis
Delivery truck, Urban Delivery Cycle City bus 12 m, Urban Bus Cycle
Basis 20,9 L-Diesel/100km
Basis 42,2 L-Diesel/100km
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Diesel engine
92
93
109 (82)
Gas engine
115 (87)
85
Electr. parallel hybrid
84
Electr. serial hybrid
74
33 (44)
29 (38)
Battery electr. vehicle
Battery electr. vehicle + charging
26 (34)
83
Diesel engine
85
97 (73)
105 (79)
Gas engine
75
Electr. parallel hybrid
76
Electr. serial hybrid
65
29 (38)
Battery electr. vehicle
26 (34)
23 (31)
Battery electr. vehicle + charging
The bars in the figure show the changed final energy consumption. Differing changes of GHG emissions (CO2e
wtw) for measures with alternative energy carriers instead of diesel are indicated separately.
For the city bus, the measures of Efficiency Package A achieve savings of approx. 7 % energy and greenhouse gases for a conventional diesel engine. With a natural gas engine, the final energy demand is approx.
15 % higher, yet the greenhouse gas emissions are approx. 13 % lower. In comparison with the EURO VI
reference bus, the hybrid drivetrains with implementation of Package A offer a reduction potential of approx.
16 % for a parallel hybrids and approx. 26 % for serial hybrids. The higher saving potential of the serial hybrid primarily results from the bigger electrical machine of the selected vehicle model, and not from differences in the powertrain structure, for further details see chapter 2.4.3.2. Overall, the reduction potentials for
final energy and greenhouse gas emissions of the city bus reflect those of the delivery truck with the most
substantial savings achieved by dedicated electric vehicles. The reduction potential of the battery bus without
intermediate charge is slightly lower due to the increased vehicle weight in reference to the bus with frequent
intermediate charge.
Implementation of the additional technologies summarised in Efficiency Package B is likely to result in further final energy and greenhouse gas savings for all drive concepts (see Figure 4). Both hybrid and electric
buses are going to benefit from the decreased rolling resistance of future tyres due to the fact that these tyres
will exert less of a ‘braking effect’, thus allowing improved energy recovery with regenerative brakes.
In conclusion, the analyses of reduction potentials reveal that the implementation of current technologies
summarised in Efficiency Package A could achieve greenhouse gas reductions of 7 % to 11 % for dedicated
diesel vehicles, depending on the vehicle category. The savings of hybrid vehicles range from 14 % (semitrailer truck) to over 26 % (city bus). Vehicles with natural gas engines are associated with an increase of
final energy consumption in comparison with the EURO VI reference vehicles, however, greenhouse gas
emissions decrease by 13 to 19 %. Additional technologies that are feasible and will be available in the foreseeable future could reduce greenhouse gas emission by an additional 6 to 10 % depending on vehicle category, mission profile and powertrain. At present, the use of dedicated battery-electric vehicles could already
cut greenhouse gas emissions (well-to-wheel) by half. With the additional implementation of soon-to-beavailable technologies, greenhouse gas savings on 60 % to 79 % assuming the current average electricity mix
of the EU27 member states are possible.
14
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
3 Costs of the investigated efficiency measures for the reduction of
greenhouse gases
Among the key factors for the implementation of energy-efficient and greenhouse gas-saving technologies is
the cost efficiency of the proposed measures. Thus, the analysis of vehicle cost differences is a pivotal aspect
of the evaluation of the technologies under investigation.
▸
▸
The use of novel technologies is only economically beneficial for the vehicle operators if the additional
costs associated with technology implementation do not exceed the resulting fuel cost savings.
From a socio-economic perspective, the question of currently feasible and future expected greenhouse
gas savings and their associated costs arises.
In consequence, the single technologies investigated in the present study were subject to an analysis of business economics and GHG abatement costs. In addition, marginal abatement cost curves (MAC curves) and
cumulative savings costs were estimated for the packages of efficiency measures proposed here.
3.1 Additional technology-specific costs for vehicle operators
The cost analysis estimated the level of current additional investment costs for the purchase of a vehicle
equipped with the investigated additional fuel-saving technologies. The calculations were based on published
information on pricing of technology measures already available on the market, e.g. manufacturer price lists
and relevant technical journals.
In the case of a semi-trailer truck 40 t GVW (see Figure 5), the average investment costs for the selected
efficiency technologies range between 0 and approx. 60 000 €. In consequence, the total investment costs for
the purchase of a tractor-trailer may increase by more than 50 %.
▸
▸
▸
A speed limiter restricting the vehicle speed to 80 km/h is not associated with any additional costs. The
application of low rolling resistance tyres and measures for the optimisation of axle and transmission
losses will not exceed 1000 € per vehicle.
The costs for optimisation of aerodynamics and engine auxiliaries as well as limited lightweight retrofitting (curb weight reduction of 3 %) range between 2 000 and 8 000 €. The costs for exhaust heat recovery via ORC were estimated to result in additional average costs of 11 000 €.
The most expensive measure is the purchase of vehicles with alternative drive concepts. Trucks with
natural gas engines and LNG tanks are available on the market today. In contrast, no hybrid semi-trailer
trucks are currently available on the market. The reported additional investment costs thus represent an
estimate for the price upon market introduction, which could be substantially reduced in the future.
For delivery trucks with 12 t GVW, the additional investment costs for the selected technology packages
currently range between 0 € (speed limiter) and approx. 25 000 € (parallel hybrid, not including extra costs
for battery replacement). The battery-electric delivery truck represents an exception; the cost is tripled in
reference to a diesel HDV.
A similar picture emerges for the city bus with 18 t GVW. In this case, the additional investment costs for
the single optimisation measures under investigation range between averages of 300 to 4 000 €. However,
investing in vehicles with alternative drive concepts is substantially more expensive. The additional costs for
the purchase of a natural gas-fuelled bus amount to an average of 34 000 €, whereas a hybrid bus exceeds the
cost of the reference vehicle by 70 000 to 100 000 €. The most expensive option is the battery-electric bus.
Based on pricing for battery-electric buses sold in Germany, the current surcharge in reference to a diesel bus
was calculated to range between 100 000 to 400 000 € independent of differences between dedicated batteryelectric buses or models with intermediate charge option (overhead wire, induction).
15
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Figure 5
Additional investment costs per vehicle – semi-trailer truck 40 t
Other
Rolling resistance Aerodynamics
Powertrain
0€
ICE diesel improvement, eta +0.01
Exhaust heat recovery (ORC)
Gas engine (LNG)
Electrical parallel hybrid
Gear box and final drive improvement
aero pack 1
aero pack 2: tractor
aero pack 2: trailer
aero pack 2: tractor+trailer
Fuel-saving tires today: tractor
Fuel-saving tires today: trailer
Fuel-saving tires today: tractor+trailer
Fuel-saving tires, future
Fuel-saving tires, future + Super singles
Lightweighting: 400kg (3%)
Speed limiter: 80 km/h
Economical auxiliary consumers
20.000 €
40.000 €
60.000 €
80.000 €
540 €
11.000 €
40.000 €
battery replacement
60.000 €
50 €
4.500 €
4.900 €
6.000 €
10.900 €
80 €
120 €
200 €
280 €
660 €
1.900 €
0€
2.000 €
The application of energy-efficient technologies may also affect a number of variable vehicle costs. In the
context of some efficiency measures, the mileage-dependent additional costs may distinctly exceed the immediate additional investment costs. In consequence, the following mileage-dependent variable differences
in vehicle costs were included in the cost analyses:
▸
▸
▸
▸
Changes in the urea consumption for SCR facilities (improvement of diesel engine energy conversion
efficiency, natural gas vehicle),
Oil changes (low-friction oil for the improvement of the energy conversion efficiency of diesel engines,
minimisation of axle and transmission losses),
Tyre changes (energy-efficient tyres) as well as
Increased maintenance costs (natural gas vehicles).
3.2 Changes to the overall vehicle costs with implementation of the measures
The analysed technological measures will not pay off from an economic point of view unless the technologydependent fuel cost savings exceed the additional costs incurred through the technology application. Based
on the energy savings potentials of the proposed measures for vehicles with medium annual mileage (per
mission profile), a comparison between potential fuel cost savings and technology-specific additional costs
was carried out assuming current fuel prices. Many vehicle operators, especially in long-haul transport strive
for amortisation of additional vehicle technologies within a maximum of three years. In line with this, the
comparison of fuel cost savings and additional costs in the present study applied the same time period. However, in other mission profiles (e.g. urban passenger transport) varying payback expectations are possible.
Hence, in a second step, the question was reversed to examine the payback period, i.e. the time it would take
for the measures to achieve full amortisation assuming current additional costs and constant fuel prices.
Semi-trailer trucks 40 t GVW are primarily operated in multi-day long-haul transport. However, vehicles
of that size class are also frequently or even predominantly employed in regional delivery. In consequence,
the present study examined both mission profiles. Figure 6 illustrates the results of the cost analysis for the
long-haul transport. Many technologies are able to achieve fuel cost savings that exceed the additional investment into their implementation within the initial three years. This applies for measures with very low
investment costs in particular. In contrast, the additional costs for alternative drive concepts (LNG, parallel
16
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
hybrid), exhaust heat recovery, lightweighting and optimisation of engine auxiliaries are higher than the fuel
cost savings achieved over the period of three years. In long-haul transport, the length of the payback period
ranges between three to four years (LNG vehicle, engine auxiliaries) to about 30 years for the parallel hybrid.
The payback periods for a truck regional delivery transport are generally longer in comparison with longhaul transport due to lower annual mileage.
For delivery trucks 12 t GVW, the potentials for fuel cost savings are distinctly lower in comparison with
the tractor-trailer due to lower specific potentials and lower annual mileage. Most of the measures under
investigation yield cost savings below 1000 € during the initial three years. Only alternative drive concepts
(CNG, parallel hybrid, battery-electric) and tyres of efficiency category A were associated with higher savings. The highest energy costs savings of about 15,000 € within three years were achieved by the batteryelectric delivery truck. Low-friction oil and low rolling resistance tyres will achieve amortisation within the
first year, whereas the length of the payback period of diesel engine optimisation measures, vehicle regulation and the purchase of CNG trucks ranges between three and four years. The length of the payback period
of all remaining measures distinctly exceeds ten years with current costs. Due to high additional investment
costs, the payback periods of hybrid and battery-electric vehicles exceed the regular vehicle service life.
In the case of the city bus 18 t GVW, low rolling resistance tyres, optimisation measures for diesel engine
energy conversion efficiency and axle losses all have a payback period of about one year. A 3 % reduction of
curb weight is going to pay off after three year. Moreover, the optimisation of engine auxiliaries breaks even
in less than five years. The use of natural gas buses also pays off within five years, as long as there is no need
for additional supply infrastructure and the current energy tax benefits remain in place. In contrast, assuming
current conditions, both hybrid and battery-electric buses are associated with higher additional investment
costs than may be saved through reduced energy costs over the average service life. Only for battery-electric
buses with intermediate charge, a payback within regular vehicle service life seems possible with current
additional investment costs.
Figure 6
Change in costs per vehicle in the first 3 years (semi-trailer truck long-haul)
Other
Rolling resistance Aerodynamics
Powertrain
-50.000 €
ICE diesel improvement, eta +0.01
Exhaust heat recovery (ORC)
Gas engine (LNG)
Electrical parallel hybrid
Gear box and final drive improvement
aero pack 1
aero pack 2: tractor
aero pack 2: trailer
aero pack 2: tractor+trailer
Fuel-saving tires today: tractor
Fuel-saving tires today: trailer
Fuel-saving tires today: tractor+trailer
Fuel-saving tires, future
Fuel-saving tires, future + Super singles
Lightweighting: 400kg (3%)
Speed limiter: 80 km/h
Economical auxiliary consumers
-25.000 €
0€
-3.700 €
25.000 €
50.000 €
75.000 €
2.500 €
-4.900 €
11.000 €
-41.900 €
44.700 €
-6.000 €
-2.300 €
-6.500 €
-1.400 €
-7.400 €
60.000 €
50 €
4.500 €
4.900 €
6.000 €
-9.300 €
-1.900 €
-4.100 €
-6.000 €
10.900 €
200 €
300 €
500 €
-9.100 €
700 €
-9.500 €
1.100 €
-1.100 €
-5.500 €
-1.700 €
1.900 €
- €
2.000 €
Change of fuel costs
Additional technology costs
(investment + variable costs)
With increasing production, the production costs of alternative drive technologies are expected to fall due to
learning and optimisation of production processes, thus resulting in lower investment costs for vehicle purchase. Simultaneously, current scenarios expect fuel prices to rise in the future due to inflation. An additional
analysis was carried out to examine the effects of future learning resulting in optimised production and rising
fuel prices on the overall cost efficiency of hybrid and battery-electric vehicles, thus influencing the length of
future payback periods. Two scenarios modelled the reduction of additional investment costs by an annual
rate of 5 and 10 %, respectively, while simultaneously assuming an annual increase of fuel and electricity
17
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
prices driven by inflation of 2 %. For parallel-hybrid vehicles additional the case was analysed if future battery generations have a better durability and no battery replacement is required anymore within regular vehicle service life. The following table illustrates the changes in payback periods in the scenarios in comparison
with current conditions.
A semi-trailer truck 40 t with parallel hybrid technology will not become economically viable in long-haul
transport even with a reduction of additional investment costs by more than 60 % - unless an additional battery replacement can be avoided with future battery generations of longer durability. In regional delivery, a
parallel hybrid semi-trailer truck could pay off within regular vehicle service life also including battery replacement. Also a delivery truck 12 t with parallel-hybrid or battery-electric technology could pay off in
future with assumed strong reductions of additional investment costs – however still having payback periods
beyond typical short-term expectations of vehicle operators. Urban buses with hybrid or electric technology
could become economically viable in case of assumed cost reductions within 7-11 years (scenario A) resp. 46 years (scenario B) compared to a regular diesel bus. Electric buses with intermediate charge could pay off
even one or two years earlier. According to the scenario results, hybrid and electric heavy-duty vehicles
could become economically viable in future and generate cost savings for the vehicle operators. Indeed, this
will only be achieved in case of substantial reductions of additional investment costs for such vehicles with
alternative powertrain technologies.
Table 1
Average payback periods of hybrid and electric vehicles in different scenarios
Average payback periods in years
Semi-trailer truck
40 t long-haul
Semi-trailer truck
40 t regional delivery
Delivery truck 12 t
Urban bus 18 t
Legend of payback
periods
parallel hybrid - with battery replacement
- without battery replacement
parallel hybrid - with battery replacement
- without battery replacement
with
today‘s
costs
30.0
with future costs in 10 years
scenario A
scenario B
15.0
10.0
13.6
9.1
8.8
5.8
7.9
5.3
20.1
14.4
12.8
11.7
8.4
7.5
6.4
5.0
4.3
4.2
3.1
27.2
parallel hybrid - with battery replacement
- without battery replacement
electric
40.2
parallel hybrid - with battery replacement
- without battery replacement
serial hybrid
22.0
14.8
11.0
8.5
7.4
electric
electric with intermediate charge
14.4
10.7
7.2
5.3
≤3 years
>3-6 years
25.7
>6 years, but within
vehicle service life
Not within vehicle service life
3.3 Cost efficiency of the technological measures for GHG reduction
Greenhouse gas abatement costs are defined as the costs that allow the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 1 ton of CO2 equivalents (€/ton CO2e). In this way, a comparison of the cost efficiencies of different
measures in transport, but also of measures and approaches in other areas is possible. The specific greenhouse gas reduction costs of vehicle-related measures is calculated from the quotient of the difference in
vehicle costs divided by the overall achievable greenhouse gas reductions in a defined period of time.
Longer periods of time and thus, higher mileages, are associated with higher greenhouse gas reductions per
vehicle and higher fuel cost savings.
18
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
[𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ℎ𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (€)] − [𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (€)]
€
�=
𝐺𝐺𝐻𝐻𝐺𝐺 𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠 �
[𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2𝑒𝑒)]
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂2𝑒𝑒
From a socio-economic perspective, the entire vehicle service life is relevant. In contrast, vehicle operators
assess cost efficiency of technologies in reference to the period of use in their businesses and expectations
towards the payback period on the additional investments. For these reasons, the calculation of specific
greenhouse gas abatement costs for the measures included several different reference periods.
Single technological measures
The following figure exemplifies the greenhouse gas reduction measures for the semi-trailer truck 40 t in
long-haul transport sorted according to their GHG abatement cost efficiency. The specific abatement costs
range between -4 800 up to +3 300 €/t CO2e. In the three-year assessment, the abatement costs are higher
compared to an assessment based on the average vehicle service life of about eight years. Over three years, a
number of measures cause additional costs although their specific GHG abatement costs are negative over
longer periods of time. In fact, 10 out of 17 measures are associated with negative abatement costs over a
period of three years. This number rises to 14 measures over a period of six years and totals at 15 measures
with negative abatement costs over the entire vehicle service life.
Figure 7
Specific GHG abatement costs of technological measures for a semi-trailer truck in
long-haul transport depending on the reference period
3 years
1
Speed limiter 80 km/ h
2
Gearbox and final drive improved
3
Fuel-saving tyres today: trailer
4
Fuel-saving tyres future
5
Fuel-saving tyres today: all axles
6
Fuel-saving tyres today: tractor
7
Fuel-saving tyres future + supersingles
8
ICE diesel improved
9
Aero pack 1
10
Aero pack 2: trailer
11
Aero pack 2: tractor+trailer
12
Economical auxiliary consumers
13
Lightweighting
14
Exhaust heat recovery with ORC
15
Gas engine (LNG)
16
Aero pack 2: tractor
17
Electric parallel hybrid
Euro / t
CO2e
-370 €
-363 €
-342 €
-341 €
-338 €
-329 €
-327 €
-124 €
-115 €
-70 €
66 €
66 €
276 €
467 €
617 €
946 €
3.340 €
6 years
Gas engine (LNG)
Speed limiter 80 km/ h
Gearbox and final drive improved
Fuel-saving tyres today: trailer
Fuel-saving tyres future
Fuel-saving tyres today: all axles
Fuel-saving tyres future + supersingles
Fuel-saving tyres today: tractor
Aero pack 1
Aero pack 2: trailer
Aero pack 2: tractor+trailer
Economical auxiliary consumers
ICE diesel improved
Lightweighting
Exhaust heat recovery with ORC
Aero pack 2: tractor
Electric parallel hybrid
Euro / t
CO2e
-3.756 €
-370 €
-363 €
-342 €
-341 €
-338 €
-335 €
-329 €
-243 €
-220 €
-152 €
-152 €
-147 €
-47 €
48 €
288 €
1.485 €
vehicle service life (8 years)
Gas engine (LNG)
Speed limiter 80 km/ h
Gearbox and final drive improved
Fuel-saving tyres today: trailer
Fuel-saving tyres future
Fuel-saving tyres today: all axles
Fuel-saving tyres future + supersingles
Fuel-saving tyres today: tractor
Aero pack 1
Aero pack 2: trailer
Aero pack 2: tractor+trailer
Economical auxiliary consumers
ICE diesel improved
Lightweighting
Exhaust heat recovery with ORC
Aero pack 2: tractor
Electric parallel hybrid
Euro / t
CO2e
-4.849 €
-370 €
-363 €
-342 €
-341 €
-338 €
-336 €
-329 €
-275 €
-258 €
-207 €
-207 €
-153 €
-128 €
-57 €
123 €
1.021 €
The order of measures also changes according to the length of the reference period. For instance, the LNG
semi-trailer truck is associated with positive GHG abatement costs in the first three years due to the high
initial investment. In consequence, its rank is 15 out of 17. However, if the reference period is extended to
six years, the reduction costs turn negative with increasing fuel savings and the LNG truck ranks first (with
current energy prices including energy tax benefits for natural gas).
The cost efficiency analyses reveal negative abatement costs of most single technological measures under
present conditions for the semi-trailer truck as well as for the other analysed vehicle classes. In particular,
measures for the reduction of driving resistance can pay off often within the initial three years, thus within
the economic expectations of many vehicle owners. If acceptance of longer payback periods was established
by vehicle owners, a number of additional technologies would be rated cost efficient. In consequence, the
temporal aspect, i.e. the reference period for cost efficiency of greenhouse gas reduction measures, is critically relevant for the assessment of the cost efficiency of individual technologies.
From a socio-economic perspective, i.e. across the average vehicle service life, most technologies incur
negative abatement costs. Thus, the implementation is associated with an economic advantage. But this is not
the case for hybrid and battery-electric vehicles. These technologies generate additional costs (= positive
19
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
abatement costs) even over the entire service life due to the high technology costs at present. However, the
scenario calculations revealed that these technologies may also achieve negative abatement costs in future
given relevant reductions of technology costs (learning and economy of scale effects with increasing production).
Packages of measures
A number of cost analyses were carried out for the packages of measures defined in the potential analyses
▸
Average greenhouse gas abatement costs of the efficiency packages were calculated based on combined
greenhouse gas reduction potentials and vehicle cost changes of the measures included in the packages;
Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves were computed for all packages;
Based on these MAC curves, the cumulative abatement costs per vehicle were calculated.
▸
▸
MAC curves reveal the marginal costs that allow additional emission reductions within a given system (e.g.
truck measures). For this purpose, measures within the efficiency packages were sorted according to their
individual cost efficiency (marginal cost in € / t CO2e) and combined based on the most cost-efficient measure. For each additional measure, the additional greenhouse gas reduction potential and the specific costs of
the additional reduction were calculated and applied.
Figure 8 exemplifies MAC curves (left) and cumulative greenhouse gas abatement costs per vehicle (right),
i.e. the sum of the changes to vehicle costs with the incremental combination of single measures. The figure,
thus, reveals which total cost changes per vehicle are associated with which GHG reductions. The maximum
cost reduction is achieved with the combination of all measures with negative abatement costs alone. Further
measures (with positive abatement costs) will in consequence result in decreased savings for the operator.
For the semi-trailer truck 40 t in long-haul transport, combination of analysed technologies in measure package Diesel B with negative GHG abatement costs can save 12 % with technologies that pay off within three
years up to 21 % with all technologies that pay off within vehicle service life. The maximum cost reduction
per vehicle is 15 000 Euro (3 years) up to 55 000 Euro (vehicle service life). Combining all technologies that
pay off within vehicle service life (thus saving 21 % of GHG emissions) would reduce vehicle costs already
within the first three years by about 4 000 Euro as cost savings from most cost-efficient technologies would
offset the additional costs of those technologies, which pay off only after longer time periods.
Figure 8
0€
-500 €
0%
5%
10%
15%
Specific GHG reduction per vehicle
20%
25%
80.000 €
€ / Fahrzeug und Amortisationszeitraum
500 €
ORC
1.000 €
lightweighting
1.500 €
aeropack 2
auxiliary consumers
2.000 €
ICE diesel improved
2.500 €
Cumulated abatement costs semi-trailer truck 40 tons long-haul
- Diesel Package B -
Payback period expected: 3 years
Payback period expected: 6 years
vehicle service life (8 years)
fuel-saving tyres
3.000 €
gearbox & final drive improved
MAC curves semi-trailer truck 40 tons long-haul
- Diesel Package B -
speed limiter 80 km/h
€ / ton CO2e well-to-wheel
3.500 €
MAC curves and cumulated GHG abatement costs of measure packages B for a
semi-trailer truck 40 t in long-haul transport
Payback period expected: 3 years
Payback period expected: 6 years
vehicle service life (8 years)
cumulated additional investment costs
60.000 €
40.000 €
20.000 €
0€
-20.000 €
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
-40.000 €
-60.000 €
-80.000 €
-100.000 €
Finally, the maximum cumulative GHG reduction potentials with negative marginal abatement costs of all
efficiency packages were compared with the total potentials. The results show clearly that a restriction to
measures with payback period of maximum three years will limit the exploitation of the full GHG reduction
potential of the package. An extension of the payback period to six years or more distinctly broadens the
scope for additional emission reductions due to the fact that the number of measures with negative abatement
costs increases. Thus, the relevance of the expectations of vehicle operators towards payback periods for
20
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
their assessment of measures is revealed. This in turn influences the likelihood and feasibility of reduction
potentials through energy-saving and greenhouse gas reducing technologies. If vehicle operators could be
won over to accept longer payback periods, a number of current and future technologies for greenhouse gas
reduction in heavy-duty vehicles could be much more common and popular.
The use of hybrid and battery-electric vehicles is associated with additional costs for all vehicle classes under
investigation, even across the entire vehicle service life, assuming present technology and fuel costs. In general, those positive abatement costs may not be compensated with other technologies having negative abatement costs. However, these alternative drive concepts have been recently introduced to the market, or may
not even be available for some vehicle classes as yet. Relevant future cost reductions could render city buses
viable within five to six years and shorten the payback period of delivery trucks to seven to eight years.
Thus, considerable additional greenhouse gas reduction potentials could be exploited as soon as development
and increased availability of alternative drive concepts effectively lower production costs.
Table 2
Vehicle class and
mission profile
Semi-trailer truck
40 t, long haul
cycle
Semi-trailer truck
40 t, regional
delivery cycle
Delivery truck 12 t,
urban delivery
cycle
City bus 18 t, citybus urban cycle
Total GHG mitigation potentials of the measure packages and partial mitigation
potentials of measures in the packages with negative GHG abatement costs
Measure package
Combined GHG
mitigation
potential of the
package
Diesel A
Natural gas (LNG) A
Parallel hybrid A
Diesel B
Natural gas (LNG) B
Parallel hybrid B
Diesel A
Natural gas (LNG) A
Parallel hybrid A
Diesel B
Natural gas (LNG) B
Parallel hybrid B
Diesel A
Natural gas (CNG) A
Parallel hybrid A
Electric A
Diesel B
Natural gas (CNG) B
Parallel hybrid B
Electric A
Diesel A
Natural gas (CNG) A
Parallel hybrid A
Serial hybrid A
Electric A
Electric with intermediate charging A
Diesel B
Natural gas (CNG) B
Parallel hybrid B
11%
12%
16%
21%
19%
24%
7%
9%
16%
13%
15%
23%
8%
18%
15%
56%
17%
27%
25%
62%
7%
13%
16%
26%
62%
66%
15%
21%
24%
Partial GHG mitigation potentials
of individual measures in the package
with negative GHG abatement costs
After 3 years
After 6 years
Within vehicle
service life
10%
+1%
+0%
10%
+2%
+0%
10%
+1%
+0%
12%
+6%
+3%
10%
+9%
+1%
12%
+6%
+1%
4%
+0%
+2%
4%
+0%
+4%
4%
+0%
+2%
9%
+0%
+1%
7%
+0%
+5%
9%
+0%
+1%
4%
+2%
+0%
4%
+11%
+2%
4%
+2%
+0%
2%
+0%
+2%
7%
+5%
+3%
7%
+14%
+3%
7%
+5%
+3%
8%
+0%
+3%
2%
+3%
+3%
2%
+3%
+9%
2%
+3%
+3%
2%
+3%
+3%
2%
+3%
+0%
2%
+3%
+61%
8%
6%
8%
+4%
+12%
+4%
+2%
+2%
+2%
21
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Vehicle class and
mission profile
Measure package
Combined GHG
mitigation
potential of the
package
Serial hybrid B
Electric B
Electricwith intermediate charging B
35%
66%
69%
Partial GHG mitigation potentials
of individual measures in the package
with negative GHG abatement costs
After 3 years
After 6 years
Within vehicle
service life
8%
+4%
+2%
6%
+4%
+0%
6%
+4%
+59%
22
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
4 Strategies to promote the introduction and establishment of fuelsaving and GHG reducing technologies for heavy-duty vehicles
Many fuel-saving and greenhouse gas-reducing technologies for heavy-duty vehicles already available on the
current market find limited application and are used by only a fraction of vehicle operators. In consequence,
the scope of the present study included the discussion of political strategies to promote the introduction and
establishment of such technologies.
The initial step included the analysis of prerequisites and barriers for a market introduction and establishment
of greenhouse gas-reducing technologies beyond greenhouse gas reduction potentials and cost (reductions).
These include legal and practical parameters as well as information deficits and other barriers to stakeholder
acceptance in freight transport. Based on these results, the second step included the analysis of strategies to
promote the introduction and establishment of energy-saving technologies for heavy-duty vehicles in Europe.
Advantages and disadvantages of different strategies as well as their acceptance within the freight logistics
sector were discussed. From these single strategies, a roadmap combining different strategies was developed.
4.1 Barriers for establishing fuel-saving and GHG reducing technologies
The analysis of prerequisites and barriers for the market introduction and establishment of energy-saving
technologies included a literature search complemented by consultations with stakeholders in freight transport (truck manufacturers, haulage businesses and transport companies).
The introduction of energy-saving HDV technologies is hampered by a number of obstacles:
▸
▸
▸
▸
Technology-specific barriers are related to characteristic features (e.g. dimensions, weight) of a specific
technology or special prerequisites necessary for the application of a certain technology. Major technology-specific barriers are associated with
• Reduced ease of use/ user friendliness (e.g. driver comfort, time-consuming routines)
• Reduced economical use of the vehicle for compliance with legal requirements (e.g. construction
changes) or reduced compatibility with international standards (e.g. craneability)
• Non-existent supply infrastructure and service network (e.g. for natural gas, hybrid and batteryelectric vehicles)
Financial barriers result from absolute costs (e.g. high investment costs) or from the evaluation of the
cost-benefit-ratios of a technology (e.g. assessment of outage probabilities, payback expectations, resale
value). Smaller businesses in particular frequently lack the personnel to accurately assess cost reduction
potentials and have both limited financial means at their disposal and limited access to loans.
Structural barriers are caused by existing structures and established procedures in the logistics sector.
The pivotal question in this context is the importance of fuel costs for vehicle operators. There are two
aspects relevant to the question, the proportion of fuel costs in reference to the overall total of the business, and the ‘fuel responsibility’, i.e. which party effectively pays for the fuel consumed during transport. With a share of 20-30 %, fuel costs are particularly relevant in regional and long-haul transport.
However, a number of mechanisms exist for hauliers to shift costs to clients (e.g. fuel escalation clauses).
If the financial responsibility is shifted to the client to a large extent, the incentive for the establishment
of efficiency measures among the fleet is low. Beyond that, a smaller transport client has only limited
opportunities to induce the establishment of energy-saving technologies in a major haulage contractor.
Information deficits arise due to the complexity of the topic, particularly with respect to the challenge
of accurate calculation of reduction potentials and costs, and the adequate communication of results.
The assessment of barriers distinguishes between technology-specific barriers and others. The assessment of
the relevance of technology-specific barriers strongly depends on the evaluation of the importance of a tech-
23
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
nology from political, economic and environmental angles. Moreover, barriers should be differentiated into
those with a foreclosing and those with a delaying effect.
The additional barriers not related to individual technologies should be considered in context. According to
survey data, there is a general awareness of energy-saving technologies within the freight transport sector. A
pivotal barrier to widespread implementation may be found in the lack of reliable and credible information.
Knowledge on reduction potentials of a given technology is fundamentally important for the calculation of
cost-benefit-ratios. The absence of economic analyses in turn impedes the acquisition of funding for additional purchases. Small businesses are at a particular disadvantage to invest in novel technologies due to
limited personnel and restricted financial resources. In addition, a limited reliability of novel technologies
may act as a major deterrent in the view of vehicle operators.
4.2 Measures to promote technology introduction and establishment in
heavy-duty vehicles
Based on the analysis of barriers, measures promoting the introduction of energy-saving HDV technologies
and their widespread establishment throughout the vehicle fleet were examined. The focus was particularly
on political incentives for the improvement of fuel efficiency in road freight transport. The resulting measures were grouped depending on their overall approach:
▸
▸
▸
Information involves measures for the supply and dissemination of information;
Funding comprises measures that involve financial support;
Regulation defines measures addressing changes in legislation.
Both the analysis of barriers and the analysis of measures revealed that a combination of different measures
should be pursued to most effectively address the different barriers and stakeholders. A synthesis of the different aspects is attempted in the proposed roadmap (Figure 9).
Information: Potential buyers depend on reliable and transparent information on reduction potentials and
costs of a technology to carry out realistic cost-benefit-analyses. To satisfy the demand for reliable and
transparent information on cost-benefit-analyses of efficiency technologies, an initial requirement would be a
standardised test methodology for the quantification of CO2 emissions. These data are required both for entire
vehicles and individual technologies. The VECTO simulation model of the European Commission is already
pursuing this approach. However, due to the great diversity and complexity of technologies, it is not possible to
model all technologies and combinations at present. Further development of VECTO or the development of
supplementary methods for technologies currently not included in the VECTO model is required. The goal
should be a model that includes all available and future technologies applying unequivocal standards.
Standardised test methodology acts as the foundation for a number of additional measures. This correlation is
illustrated with a uniform blue colouring in the figure. One pivotal measure is the CO2 certification of HDVs or
single technologies for the purpose of publishing information on reduction potentials in a transparent and comprehensible way. Energy consumption and CO2 certification should be mandatory for all new HDVs. As a
complement to these general certificates, a voluntary certification for single technologies should be made available, particularly for technologies with retrofitting potential, thus providing manufacturers with proof of the
efficiency effects of their technologies. Such certification allows the establishment of targeted incentives, which
in turn alleviate the barrier of high investment costs for the purchase of new vehicles, or the retrofitting of the
existing fleet with energy-saving and greenhouse gas-reducing technologies.
Even with appropriate information available, smaller businesses may struggle to compile such information
and calculate payback periods adequately. Independent efficiency consultants could support hauliers during
the purchase of vehicles with superior efficiency or supervise the retrofitting with efficiency technologies.
Moreover, such consultants could be in charge of disseminating information on government incentives (e.g.
funding programmes) and support the introduction of fuel-consumption monitoring. General information
24
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
events (e.g. trade fairs, road shows) introducing successful examples of consumption reduction through
available or newly developed efficiency technologies present an opportunity for stronger promotion of the
entire topic of HDV energy efficiency and measures for energy savings.
Funding: Despite the general promise of economic benefits, high cost of purchase may act as a barrier preventing investment into additional energy-saving technologies when purchasing a new vehicle. Appropriate
funding measures may help alleviate this obstacle. Among the incentives could be investment loans at reduced rates for certified technologies, or funding programmes for municipalities allowing the retrofitting of
their fleets. Another conceivable option would be the establishment of environmental incentives in the form
of a scrappage scheme for old HDVs with simultaneous purchase of a new vehicle. Funding programmes
may target technologies that are currently not economical, but desired from a political point of view. Targeted funding may increase production numbers, which in turn generates knowledge and learning of optimal
methods, thus reducing specific production costs and lowering prices for new vehicles. Moreover, research
and development by technology manufacturers could be funded to accelerate market availability, functionality, reliability and economic pricing.
In addition to government funding, private fuel-saving-contracting should be considered. External investors
bear the cost of purchase for efficiency technology (or part thereof) in return for a stake in the subsequent
cost savings. The introduction of fuel consumption monitoring in the transport sector would be a prerequisite
for such schemes.
Measures for the promotion of alternative drive concepts are seen as a separate group within the roadmap. The
integration of alternative drives into the market requires extensive support, particularly with regard to the supply infrastructure. The development of the energy supply infrastructure including the extension of refuelling
stations with natural gas supply (CNG, LNG) and electricity charging stations is indispensable for the establishment of alternative drives. A comprehensive service network for maintenance and repairs is equally important. As long as the number of vehicles with alternative engines remains low, garages are unlikely to invest in
the education of their staff or the purchase of new equipment. Conversely, potential buyers may be reluctant to
invest in new technology if the service network is underdeveloped and adequate service is scarce. Finally, the
suitability of tax benefits such as the current energy tax benefit of natural gas should be examined for other
alternative drive concepts.
Regulation: A number of technical measures are currently ignored due to the fact that these technologies are
frequently larger or heavier than regular diesel engines, thus considerably decreasing the payload. Although
future technical developments may optimise dimensions, it is recommended to consider adaptations of legal
requirements for such technologies to provide manufacturers with more flexibility during the development of
efficiency technologies.
Pressure to act may also be generated through mandatory efficiency classes for individual technologies, e.g.
tighter restrictions for the rolling resistance of future tyres exceeding current EU standards. Such measures
not only promote the equipment of vehicles with the most energy-efficient technology, they also prevent
vehicle operators from letting standards slip during the maintenance with consumables (e.g. tyres, oil, lighting) and electing to use less efficient products.
In the case that information and funding measures fail to produce the desired effects in lowering greenhouse
gas emission of HDVs, the introduction of a mandatory European CO2 regulation for heavy-duty vehicles
should be considered in analogy to the passenger car sector.
25
Future measures for fuel savings and GHG reduction of heavy-duty vehicles
Figure 9
Roadmap of political measures to promote the establishment of energy-saving and
GHG reducing technologies in the HDV fleet
Suppliers
OEMs
Vehicle owners
Information
Information events (Road Shows…) about truck efficiency
Voluntary CO2
certification for
individual technologies
Standardised
CO2 testing
procedure
Reduction of legal
restrictions
General
Mandatory CO2 emission
targets for new heavyduty vehicles
Alternative
powertrains
Subsidies and incentives
Regulation
Mandatory CO2
certification of
new heavyduty vehicles
Fuel efficiency
consulting for
vehicle owners
independently
from
manufacturers
Mandatory
efficiency classes
for individual
technologies
R+D programmes for
efficiency technologies
CO2 monitoring
incentives for
fleet operators
Financial support
for high initial
costs of energyefficient vehicles
or technologies
Fuel-saving
contracting
Support the qualification of
repair and maintenance
facilities for vehicles with
alternative powertrains
Tax concession for
alternative energy carriers
Improvement of fuelling infrastructure for alternative powertrains
26